ATC120502: Report on Budget Vote 23 of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate for 2012/13 dated 02 May 2012


Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on Budget Vote 23 of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate for 2012/13 dated 2 May 2012

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on Budget Vote 23 of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate for 2012/13 dated 2 May 2012.

The Portfolio Committee on Police examined Budget Vote 23 of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) for the 2012/13 financial year, including projections of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for 2013/14 and 2014/15 as outlined in the Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE). In addition, the Committee examined the Strategic Plan (2012/2017) and the 2012/13 Annual Performance Plan of the IPID. The Committee reports as follows:


1.1. Structure of the Report

The Report is divided into eight sections. Section 1 provides an outline of the structure of the Report and the meetings held to discuss the Annual Performance Plan (APP), Strategic Plan and Budget Vote of the IPID. Section 2 provides an overview of the strategic priorities of IPID for 2012/13 as contained in the Annual Performance Plan for 2012/13. Section 3 provides an overview of expenditure during the previous financial year (2011/12) and Section 4 outlines the 2012/13 budget as contained in Vote 23 in the ENE. Section 5 contains a summary of some of the key observations of the Committee made during the meeting with the IPID. Section 6 provides a list of additional information requested by the Committee during this meeting. Sections 7 and 8 provide a summary of key recommendations made to IPID regarding their 2012/13 Annual Performance Plan and budget as well as the conclusion of the Committee with respect to the budget process.

1.2. Meetings held

The Committee was briefed on an overview of the budget, Annual Performance Plan and Strategic Plan of the IPID for 2012/13 by the Research Unit on 15 March 2012. The Portfolio Committee on Police was briefed by the IPID on its 2012/13 budget and strategic priorities on 16 April 2012.


2012/13 is a significant year for the IPID (formerly known as the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD)) as it was officially launched as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate in April 2012. IPID has a transformed mandate (in terms of the IPID Act, No. 1 of 2011) which includes civilian oversight over and the requirement to investigate a range of specified crimes committed by SAPS and the municipal police services. These include, for example, investigation of complaints relating to the discharge of an official firearm by a police member; allegations of rape by a police member while on or off duty; and matters relating to systemic corruption within the police. In addition to these new investigative functions of IPID, the IPID has identified the following priorities for 2012/13:

Report and monitor recommendations made in respect to SAPS and municipal police services;

Improve reporting and accountability practices;

Develop policy, reporting frameworks and standard operating procedures to regulate investigations; and

Strengthen national and provincial management.

The 2012/17 Strategic Plan contains a new Logic Model for IPID for this period. The Ultimate Outcome for IPID is to assist in the development of ‘a police service that is trusted by the community and operates in line with the spirit of the Constitution’. Intermediate Outcomes are that ‘the IPID is a strong, independent oversight body’ and that the ‘police service is responsive to IPID recommendations’. The three Immediate Outcomes are that:

IPID is accessible to the public;

The performance management system operates optimally; and

IPID processes cases efficiently.

All outputs, indicators and targets for the IPID (in terms of its three Programmes) are aligned to these three Immediate Outcomes.

2.1. Administration: 2012/13 Indicators and Targets for Programme 1

Key outputs and targets for Programme 1 include:

Public awareness campaigns

306 community outreach events

50 media statements

Stakeholder management

Four formal engagements

Up to date policies and guidelines

Review all policies- currently 42 are signed and six are at the Chamber. A total of four remain to be reviewed

Performance management system

Submission of performance monitoring and evaluation reports (new indicator-no target set)

16 financial expenditure reports

Four asset verifications and updates

Vacancy rate of below 10%

50% females at senior and top management level

2% staff with disabilities

2.2. Investigation and Information Management: 2012/13 Indicators and Targets for Programme 2

Key outputs and targets for Programme 2 include:

Case Management System

95% (5 995) cases allocated within 48 hours

19 statistical reports generated

Completed investigations

No target set for percentage of investigations completed within the financial year

656 backlog cases (older than 12 months) completed

Recommendation reports

Disciplinary recommendation reports for all completed cases generated within 30 days

Criminal recommendation reports for all completed cases generated within 30 days

Feedback reports on investigations

Feedback reports on outcome of all completed investigations provided within 30 days of closure of case

2.3. 2012/13 Indicators and Targets for Programme 3: Legal Services

Key outputs for Programme 3 include:

Legal and Litigation Advisory Services

No target set for percentage of contracts and service level agreements finalised within 21 working days

No target set for percentage of legal opinions provided to the Directorate within 10 working days

Investigation Advisory Services

No target set for percentage of investigations in which legal advice was requested

No target set for legal opinion provided to investigators within 24 hours of request

No targets were set in this Programme as it is a new programme (with new structures). The baseline will be set during the 2012/13 financial year.


The Directorate reported to the Committee that they have spent a total of 99.99 per cent of their budget allocation for 2011/12.

However, an analysis of the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Quarter Expenditure Reports for the Directorate had pointed to a number of concerns with the Directorate’s spending during the 2011/12 financial year.

By the end of the 3 rd quarter, the Directorate had only spent 61.2% of its allocated budget which is far lower than its 3 rd quarter spending for the previous financial year (71%) as well as its projected expenditure (75 %).

Low spending was apparent in all three Programmes. By the end of the 3 rd quarter the Directorate had only spent 62.8% of its allocation for Programme 1: Administration; 59.9% for Programme 2: Complaint Processing, Monitoring and Investigations; and 61.1% for Programme 3: Information Management and Research.

Key areas of under-spending up until the end of the 3 rd quarter included:

Compensation of employees: which was low (66.3 per cent) as a result of unfilled posts due to delays in the job evaluations for new posts.

Goods and services: which was low (55.7%) mainly due to the dispute with the Department of Public Works with respect monies owed for leases, specifically the Head Office lease contract. The lease payment was withheld until legal opinion was acquired, after which (in the 4 th quarter) it was decided to pay for the agreed rent for the Structura building, rather than the building which is actually occupied by the Directorate.

Machinery and equipment: which was low (58.8%) due to problems with service providers providing quotes that were not within specifications and delays in vetting of service providers.

Problems experienced with the BAS system (the accounting system used by the Directorate) also meant that invoices could not be loaded timeously on the system. The problems with the BAS system have been resolved at the end of the 3 rd quarter which meant that all invoices were reflected on the system by the end of the 4 th quarter.

4. BUDGET VOTE 23 FOR 2012/13

The 2012/13 ENE provides for a budget allocation of R196. 961 million to IPID. This is a nominal increase of R43.6 million and a real increase of R32.6 in comparison to 2011/12. The real percentage increase for 2012/13 in comparison with 2011/12 is 21.25%.


Vote: 23



Nominal Rand change

Real Rand change

Nominal % change

Real % Change

R million
















Investigation and Information Management









Legal Services


















Source: 2012 ENE – Vote 23 IPID


Additional allocations: The 2012/13 budget sets out additional allocations of R36 million (2012/13); R45 million (2013/14) and R52.1 million (2014/15) to provide for salary adjustments, as well as implementation of the IPID Act over the MTEF.

According to the Directorate, reprioritisation of the budget priorities was necessitated by the fact that National Treasury did not provide the Directorate with the entire additional funding that they had requested. For 2012/13 the Directorate had requested R64 million of additional funds but only R36 million was granted. Key spending priorities for 2012/13 include:

Staffing: Improvements to investigative capacity particularly in provinces, including the appointment of nine provincial heads. A total of 34 new posts have been created for 2012/13. Of these 34 posts, 26 are in Programme 2: Investigation and Information Management including 17 additional investigators and nine provincial Heads. Additional posts will be phased in in the 2013-2015 period with the ultimate goal of a staff complement of 520 of which the majority will be investigators.

Skills development: Increased focus on training of investigators to enable them to execute their new mandate in terms of section 28(1) of the Act (which is the section of the Act that delineates the areas of investigation of the IPID). All investigators will attend an IPID conference where they are to be taken though the changes with regard to the Act, Regulations and Standard Operating Procedures. Training to ensure that investigators are able to perform their functions effectively in terms of section 28 will also be provided in 2012/13 on DNA, sexual offences, torture, forensic and ballistic evidence collection, medico-legal evidence, corruption, firearm training and report writing.

Office accommodation: The IPID has stated that it will be required to expand its existing office accommodation (especially in the provinces, due to staff increases) and open up new satellite offices.

Currently, IPID leases its buildings (though the Department of Public Works (DPW)). A number of serious problems with leasing have arisen. The Directorate has stated that it is currently in discussions with DPW on the viability of constructing or purchasing buildings, rather than the leasing option. The IPID has stated that it prefers the construction option.

IPID currently has six satellite offices located in Empangeni ( KwaZulu-Natal ), Mthatha ( Eastern Cape ), Rustenburg ( North West ), Thohoyandou (Limpopo), Bethlehem ( Free State ) and Upington ( Western Cape ). The satellite office in George that was scheduled for opening in 2011/12 did not open in 2011/12 as planned. In the 2012/13 financial year the IPID plans to open both the George satellite office as well as a satellite office in Pretoria/Tshwane (utilising the current Head Office accommodation). Projects for 2013/14-2015/16 include the opening of an additional 16 satellite offices. The vision is that each district will eventually have a satellite office.


5.1. 2012/13 Annual Performance Plan

The Committee raised a number of concerns with regard to the 2012/13 Annual Performance Plan. These included:

Additional performance indicator required for monitoring implementation of recommendations made to the SAPS/Municipal Police Services

The Committee highlighted the concern that while Programme 2 provides for indicators to measure completion of recommendation reports within stipulated time periods, and feedback reports to clients, there is no indicator which measured the extent of implementation of IPID recommendations contained in their reports, by the SAPS or the Municipal Police Services. The lack of implementation of Directorate recommendations by SAPS was an historical reality which, in fact, dictated the necessity for legislation to ensure that the SAPS took the Directorate more seriously. The absence of this indicator is thus a serious concern. The Committee requested that an indicator to measure feedback by the SAPS on implementation of recommendations be included under Programme 2.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate stated that they would report back to the Committee after they have discussed this recommendation internally, as to whether they agree that an indicator should be included in Programme 2 to measure implementation of recommendations by the SAPS/Municipal Police Services.

They stated that a large component of their interaction with the SAPS is around the implementation of recommendations. They have met with the SAPS on national and provincial level to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with regard to obligations in terms of the new Act. The MOU will be signed off in the next meeting.

Two workshops were recently held with the SAPS and MPS in order to draft and conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the IPID. The IPID is in the process to incorporate the inputs received from the last workshop. The revised draft Memorandum of Understanding will be discussed and deliberated at the next workshop which will be held from 6 – 8 June 2012. They will provide the Committee with a copy of the Memorand um of Understanding once it has been concluded and signed by all parties concerned..

In addition, IPID already has Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in the form of Regulations. The SAPS should also develop these operating procedures, in the form of National Instructions. These should include accountability responsibilities when there is a failure in terms of reporting, for example, in terms of the requirements of the Act.

In addition, the Case Management System of the Directorate monitors the implementation of recommendations. A consolidated list of the status of recommendations is compiled on a monthly basis and sent to the Secretary of Police and the National Commissioner. The IPID/Secretariat Forum will also monitor this issue and will report to the Minister of Police on a monthly basis.

Breakdown of performance indicator for ‘percentage of all investigations completed within the financial year’ into the different categories of investigations in line with section 28 of the IPID Act.

The Committee was not satisfied with one indicator to measure all types of investigations that would be undertaken by the IPID as a result of section 28 of the IPID Act. In addition, the fact that there is no target set for this indicator exacerbates the problem. In effect it would mean that the performance of IPID in its core functions of investigation in terms of the new Act could not be measured for 2012/13. Also, some of these investigative functions were performed in the past, and thus have existing baselines. The Directorate has since its inception for example, investigated all deaths as a result of police action and all deaths in police custody. There is an existing baseline for these investigations which must be included in the APP. The Committee thus requested that the performance indicator is broken down in line with section 28 of the Act and that, where there are existing targets, these are included in the APP.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate agreed to implement the recommendation.

Length of time in indicator for feedback to clients (30 days after completion of investigation) is too long

The Committee stated that the length of time for feedback to clients of within 30 days of closure of the investigation was too long. The Committee recommended that a shorter feedback period is considered for inclusion in the APP including feedback during an investigation (while it is still in progress) instead of waiting until the end of the process.

Removal of certain important indicators which were in the 2011/12 APP

The Committee questioned the removal of certain indicators (including indicators on discipline, etc.) that were in the previous APP and requested an explanation in this regard.

Response by the Directorate : The Directorate stated that they had debated the issue of strategic and operational indicators with National Treasury (who assisted them in compiling their APP). While a decision was made to focus mainly on strategic (rather than operational) indicators, the Directorate noted that all managers must still report on a monthly basis on their operational indicators.

5.2. 2012/13 Budget

The Committee raised a number of questions and concerns relating to the 2012/13 budget for the IPID. These included:

The medium term vision of the IPID in terms of the IPID Act and the will to function in line with the Act.

The Committee was concerned that the IPID had not succeeded in relaying effectively to Parliament their vision and plan on how they will develop over the MTEF period to ensure that they were able to implement the new requirements of the Act. The Committee also questioned whether the Directorate has the will to function effectively in line with the requirements of the new Act.

Response by the Directorate: In addressing these concerns of the Committee the Directorate dealt with two main issues. Firstly, in terms of planning and resources they stated that they have an approved Implementation Plan for the MTEF period that they will make available to the Committee. (It should be noted that this Plan was requested by the Committee in 2011/12 and the Directorate had stated that they would submit the Plan once approved by the Minister of Police. The Plan was not, however, submitted). The Directorate stated that the approved Implementation Plan is based on the full attainment of the requested additional allocations requested from National Treasury. However, as noted above, the full requested funds were not granted and implementation of the Plan in the identified time period is therefore not possible. Areas affected by a lower budget include:

All 520 posts that were signed off by the Minister, will not be able to be established during the time period

Establishment of all the satellite offices will also be affected.

Priorities for the MTEF thus needed to be adjusted. While Programme 2 was still prioritised for this period, the number of new posts established will be less than originally envisaged. Changes to the Implementation Plan arising from a reduced budget will need to be submitted to the Minister and will include the establishment of fewer new posts.

Secondly, in terms of the will to embrace their transformed mandate, the Directorate acknowledged that a reorientation of staff attitude is required to ensure that the Directorate’s staff embraces a proactive rather than a reactive modus operandi. This will require internal change management for current staff. New staff that are hired should also display this proactive approach.

Proactive initiative as key to implementation of the new Act

Related to the above, the Committee raised a number of examples where it was felt that the Directorate was failing to act proactively (in line with the spirit of the new Act). The case in Limpopo where a young person was assaulted by a member of the SAPS and the assault captured on video and broadcast on television was cited as an example. The Committee was concerned that the impression given by the Directorate’s media spokesperson that made a statement on this case, was that the IPID would only act on complaint, rather than proactively when they become aware of an abuse within the SAPS. The Committee stressed that it was vital for the efficacy of the transformed Directorate that the public is convinced and assured that the IPID will act at all times, when abuse by the SAPS is discovered.

The Committee also questioned whether there were initiatives in place to ensure more proactive interventions at station level.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate tried to contextualise and explain its action with regard to the particular case and assured the Committee that they will ensure that the internal disciplinary process within SAPS and the court process regarding this case are carried out with integrity. The particular SAPS member has been suspended. The Directorate acknowledged that they did not pick up this problem quickly enough and will look at processes to ensure that they are quickly alerted to abuse within the SAPS when these occur, especially when they have already been made public via the various media channels.

The Directorate was requested to report back to the Committee in the outcome of the court case and the disciplinary process, in written form on completion of these processes.

In response to questions around interventions at station level the Directorate stated that the discussions that are taking place around the Memorandum of Understanding with the SAPS include discussions around the establishment of a complaints desk at police stations and a complaints register. The Committee requested further clarity regarding information desks at police station level.

Capacity of staff, especially investigators to implement the requirements of the Act

Members raised a number of concerns with respect to the prioritisation (or lack thereof) of investigators in Programme 2 who are responsible for carrying out the core mandate of the Directorate. A concern was raised that the increase in investigators for 2012/13 (17 new investigators will be appointed) is largely cosmetic. The Committee raised the issue that the nine provincial Head positions will probably be more administrative than operational. The Committee is therefore doubtful as to whether this small increase in the number of investigators will in reality improve the ability of the Directorate to carry out the transformed mandate of the Directorate. Related to this, was the concern that the budget allocation in terms of Programme 2 (about 50% of total budget) is still too low in comparison to Programme 1: Administration (about 47% of total budget). The Committee also wanted to know the current ratio of administrative versus operational staff as this had been raised as a concern during the 2011/12 budget process.

Response by the Directorate: In terms of improving the skills base of investigators, the Directorate stated that training for investigators had been prioritised for 2012/13. All investigators complete a ‘basic’ investigator training course and specialised training for aspects of investigation in line with Section 28 of the Act will be offered in 2012/13. A tender was issued in 2011/12 for the development of a training manual for investigators and the first draft of the manual will be completed in April 2012. This manual will serve as a reference point for all investigators. The skill and experience level of investigators varies. A written response detailing this information will be forwarded to the Committee.

The Directorate stated that while the allocation for Programme 2 in relation to Programme 1 may seem to be a decreasing percentage of the budget this can be partially explained by the fact that the funding for the nine provincial Heads is covered under Programme 1 even though they will head provincial investigations under Programme 2. The Committee was, however, not convinced that the provincial Heads would actually carry cases and thus their functions would be largely administrative.




The Committee raised questions around the current vacancy rate of the Directorate and how many of the vacant positions were for new positions established to fulfil implementation of the IPID Act.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate stated that in terms of the current vacancy figures, out of a total of 337 positions, 34 were only created at the beginning of 2012. A total of 33 positions are currently still vacant including the positions of the nine provincial Heads. They would provide in writing a breakdown detailing which of these 33 positions were ‘old’ ICD positions and which were ‘new’ IPID positions.

Control over assets

The Committee raised a number of questions around the management of assets including the status of the interim Asset Removal Policy.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate stated that the Supply Chain Management component was fully staffed and that the required committees were all functional. The policies are all in place. The interim policy on assets has been approved but the consultation process has not been completed.

Establishment of satellite offices

The Committee raised a number of concerns with regard to the establishment of satellite offices. These included a questions as to why a satellite office was prioritised for establishment in Pretoria (in the current Head Office); what informed the plan which identified an additional 18 satellite offices to be established in the MTEF; how the IPID will ensure that this Plan is not just a ‘guesstimate’ but a Plan for implementation; and questions around the leasing/buying/building of offices including satellite offices.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate stated that the large number of complaints emanating from the Pretoria region necessitated the establishment of a satellite in the city. The costs of establishment of this satellite will be lower as the current Head office building will be used.

In terms of the 18 additional satellites (including George and Pretoria ) that are planned for establishment during the MTEF, the Directorate made the following points:

The Directorate has now for the first time, developed a User Asset Management Plan which has been approved in terms of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA). This Plan makes provision for these 18 projects.

However, this Plan is based on the current leasing model. The projected budget for the MTEF is also based on the leasing model.

The IPID has stated in the User Asset Management Plan that it would prefer to move away from leasing and rather construct or buy its offices. Construction is the IPID’s first option.

Neither the baseline budget of the Directorate for the MTEF or the Plan for the establishment of 18 additional satellite offices makes provision for construction or buying.

The Directorate, therefore, admitted that the current projected plan for the establishment to 18 additional satellites is merely a wish list and depends on budget being made available for leasing by National Treasury, and the actual leasing by the Department of Public Works within the stipulated time frames. In addition, if discussions with DPW and National Treasury support the establishment of a new model of construction or buying offices, the plan will need to be substantially modified.

2011/12 expenditure

The Committee questioned how the Directorate had managed to spend 99.99 per cent of its budget for 2011/12 when by the end of the 3 rd quarter they had only spent 61.2 per cent of their funds. The Committee was concerned that this may have meant that the funds were ‘dumped’ to ensure full expenditure.

Response by the Directorate: The Directorate responded that the reasons for low expenditure by the end of the 3 rd quarter had been resolved in the 4 th quarter (for example, the BAS system had been resolved, lease payments were made in line with the legal opinion and job evaluations were completed allowing for hiring of new staff) thus allowing for the expenditure of these funds. However, after some probing from the Committee it was conceded that there were virement made in order to spend these funds. The Directorate stated that they would provide these virement figures to the Committee once they are finalised.


The following additional information was requested by the Committee and should be sent to Parliament by 26 April 2012:

A copy of the approved Implementation Plan for the MTEF period.

The differentiation of the indicator for ‘percentage of investigations completed’ including targets for ‘deaths in police custody’ and ‘as a result of police action’.

A copy of the Communication Strategy

A breakdown of skills levels and the experience of investigators

A response as to whether they agree that an indicator should be included in Programme 2 to measure implementation of recommendations by the SAPS/Municipal Police Services

The current vacancy rate per programme and breakdown of staff in terms of vacancies per programme and position (i.e. operational versus administrative)

Identification of which of the 33 vacant positions are for ‘old’ ICD posts and which are ‘new’ IPID positions.

Asset removal policy.

Information desks.

The following report backs were requested on completions of a specific process:

The outcome of the court case and the disciplinary process involving the assault of a youth by a member of the SAPS in Limpopo, in written form on completion of these processes.

A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding with the SAPS once this has been finalised

Virement made during 4 th quarter of 2011/12


The Committee recommends the following:

Differentiation/breakdown of indicator

The indicator for ‘percentage of investigations completed’ under Programme 2 should be differentiated and broken up into its component parts in line with section 28 of the IPID Act. Targets for differentiated indicators of ‘deaths in police custody’ and ‘as a result of police action’ must be included.

Insertion of new indicator to measure implementation of recommendations

Insert a new indicator in Programme 2 to measure implementation of recommendations by the SAPS/municipal police services in co-operation with the Civilian Secretariat of Police.

Operational indicators

While the Committee supports the focus on strategic indicators, the Directorate should in future, include selective operational indictors which are integral to the effective functioning of the Directorate. These would include the indicators to promote discipline in the Directorate including the percentage of disciplinary hearings and grievances finalised within stipulated time periods.

Budget prioritisation

While the Directorate made every attempt to convince the Committee that it was prioritising expenditure and resourcing of its core programme, that is Programme 2, however, the Committee believes that more needs to be done to ensure that this Programme is adequately resourced to fulfil its requirements under Section 28 of the IPID Act. The Committee would like, in future budgets, to see an increased percentage growth of allocation to Programme 2, in comparison to Programme 1.

Immovable assets

While acknowledging the problems that have arisen with regard to the leasing of IPID buildings or buy, the Committee would like the Directorate to carefully consider their ‘preference’ to construct satellite and other office accommodation. A clear cost-benefit study should be completed before requesting support for this option by other bodies (such as DPW and National Treasury). The cost-benefit study should include the pros and cons of all available options with regard to immovable assets.

Proactive action

The Committee is convinced that the IPID needs to be seen to be working proactively and effectively in order to gain the confidence and trust of the public. In addition, the SAPS and the other policing agencies should be confident that if they commit an offence in line with section 28 of the IPID Act, the IPID will investigate and they will be charged and disciplined. The Committee thus urges the IPID to explore all measures to ensure the proactive identification of cases irrespective of whether a complaint is lodged or not.


The Portfolio Committee on Police supports the budget allocation of the Independent Police investigative Directorate for 2012/13 and recommends that Budget Vote 23 is adopted.

Report to be considered.



No related documents